The Progressive Income Tax in U.S. History

[Dan Kone]

I think you are confused, No one is saying give the rich more tax breaks, we are saying give everyone a tax break, no more taxes on wages.

And then the government is funded by libertarian magic dust?

BTW the USA survived those first 140 years just fine by charging for services it provided, duties, posts and excises. No magic dust involved and no taxes on wages either.

Where did the money come from to run the government? Did it fall from the sky? What was the average lifespan back then? When people turn 60 should we just kick them out in the streets to die?

 

[NoDrama]

And then the government is funded by libertarian magic dust?



Where did the money come from to run the government? Did it fall from the sky? What was the average lifespan back then? When people turn 60 should we just kick them out in the streets to die?

Its funny really, I gave you the answer to 3 of your questions in the very sentence you quoted. You must be very bad at reading. Oh BTW where oh where did I ever say we should kick people to the curb at 60 or that less taxes is the equivalent to an early death? No where thats where, strawman arguments are all you can come up with instead of actual debate.

 

[Dan Kone]

Its funny really, I gave you the answer to 3 of your questions in the very sentence you quoted. You must be very bad at reading. Oh BTW where oh where did I ever say we should kick people to the curb at 60 or that less taxes is the equivalent to an early death? No where thats where, strawman arguments are all you can come up with instead of actual debate.

Well you seem to think the government can operate without tax money, I'd just like to know how you think that would work.

 

[beardo]

They should get rid of income tax- they can charge a sales tax on all items that are not made in the U.S.A. at the point of sale

 

[NoDrama]

Well you seem to think the government can operate without tax money, I'd just like to know how you think that would work.

The US government would survive on Duties, posts, excises and charging for its services, just like the Constitution ordered. Government started getting out of control when they started taxing wages.

 

[Dan Kone]

The US government would survive on Duties, posts, excises and charging for its services, just like the Constitution ordered. Government started getting out of control when they started taxing wages.

Yeah. That's a great idea. We could get rid of the army and go back to having militias. We couldn't afford to regulate things like nuclear power, but since there wasn't nuclear power in the 18th century there is no need to regulate it right? What could go wrong?

Oh, and of course we will need to bring slavery back because taxing slave labor was one of the main sources of income, but since slavery was around at the founding of the country bringing slavery back must be the right thing to do. We can get rid of the national highway system because they didn't have that back then. I guess we will all have to go back to riding horses instead of driving cars. Because all progress is evil and is destroying the country the founding fathers had for the US.

GTFO. What you posted is one of the most supremely ignorant ideas I've ever heard in my life. We aren't an 18th century agrarian society. The idea that we need to get rid of everything except what we had back then is ridiculous.

 

[redivider]

the government does charge for it's services NoDrama. it is done through taxes... almost every other service, from registering an LLC, to acquiring a patent, to registering assumed names, to getting marriage licences, is charged... the only 'free' service is roadways, and some of these have public tolls, and in areas where governments don't tax their rich enough to pay for new roads, private companies operate toll roads, so those rich guys can drive in peace.... i believe we should simplify the tax code. but let's do it when the economy isn't in the shitter. that conversation CAN be left for another day.

any company that operates within the US, foreign or domestic, pays 30% when doing well. no tax discounts when doing bad. zero tax payer dollars will ever pay for another wall street bailout. other banks can pay for that through loans and the SEC should be allowed to FORCE these ultra large companies to contribute equally to bail out each other... your gonna scream socialism. i'll scream fairness. like the fairy tales say: with great power comes great responsibility. you want to be a systemically important financial institution in this country, be ready to bail out your counterparts/competition. don't want to do that?? keep your bank small.

the parts of government that are out of control is conservative social manipulation by holding real and important legislation hostage, and the police/military state which keeps spending more and more of it's money on technology which by design adds zero value, but destroys it. on construction which instead of protecting our freedoms, it takes it away by imprisoning the populace. they wish to reduce freedoms while they preach oppression, and hold the country's well being and long term economic outlook hostage.

the idea that we should expand government policies which have significantly weakened our economy, while preaching against policies in place when the United states led the world in practically every conceivable industry in the market is a sign of politically motivated obliviousness.

and i'll keep repeating it until you understand it:

you argue against policies which helped the United States have the largest economy in the world, and argue for policies which are quickly driving the US into the ground.

outsourcing, free trade, lower taxes, all help nobody but the rich.

infrastructure spending, more education, and progressive tax rates help everybody else. no matter how much you want to argue otherwise that is the truth and you cannot prove me wrong.

that's why you keep changing the subject.

 

[NoDrama]

Yeah. That's a great idea. We could get rid of the army and go back to having militias. We couldn't afford to regulate things like nuclear power, but since there wasn't nuclear power in the 18th century there is no need to regulate it right? What could go wrong?

Oh, and of course we will need to bring slavery back because taxing slave labor was one of the main sources of income, but since slavery was around at the founding of the country bringing slavery back must be the right thing to do. We can get rid of the national highway system because they didn't have that back then. I guess we will all have to go back to riding horses instead of driving cars. Because all progress is evil and is destroying the country the founding fathers had for the US.

GTFO. What you posted is one of the most supremely ignorant ideas I've ever heard in my life. We aren't an 18th century agrarian society. The idea that we need to get rid of everything except what we had back then is ridiculous.

Wow!! That was one GIANT STRAW MAN ATTACK. When you actually learn how to debate come back, as is your arguments have no merit.

STRAW MAN...
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]


Before the wage tax, the government had an army, fought several wars, and won too. They regulated what was necessary. They even made it all work without ever taxing a slave, if you remember we didn't start taxing wages until 1914, but the civil war was over in 1865. Supremely Ignorant? I would have to say it was you.

 

[NoDrama]

the government does charge for it's services NoDrama. it is done through taxes... almost every other service, from registering an LLC, to acquiring a patent, to registering assumed names, to getting marriage licences, is charged... the only 'free' service is roadways, and some of these have public tolls, and in areas where governments don't tax their rich enough to pay for new roads, private companies operate toll roads, so those rich guys can drive in peace.... i believe we should simplify the tax code. but let's do it when the economy isn't in the shitter. that conversation CAN be left for another day.

any company that operates within the US, foreign or domestic, pays 30% when doing well. no tax discounts when doing bad. zero tax payer dollars will ever pay for another wall street bailout. other banks can pay for that through loans and the SEC should be allowed to FORCE these ultra large companies to contribute equally to bail out each other... your gonna scream socialism. i'll scream fairness. like the fairy tales say: with great power comes great responsibility. you want to be a systemically important financial institution in this country, be ready to bail out your counterparts/competition. don't want to do that?? keep your bank small.

the parts of government that are out of control is conservative social manipulation by holding real and important legislation hostage, and the police/military state which keeps spending more and more of it's money on technology which by design adds zero value, but destroys it. on construction which instead of protecting our freedoms, it takes it away by imprisoning the populace. they wish to reduce freedoms while they preach oppression, and hold the country's well being and long term economic outlook hostage.

the idea that we should expand government policies which have significantly weakened our economy, while preaching against policies in place when the United states led the world in practically every conceivable industry in the market is a sign of politically motivated obliviousness.

and i'll keep repeating it until you understand it:

you argue against policies which helped the United States have the largest economy in the world, and argue for policies which are quickly driving the US into the ground.

outsourcing, free trade, lower taxes, all help nobody but the rich.

infrastructure spending, more education, and progressive tax rates help everybody else. no matter how much you want to argue otherwise that is the truth and you cannot prove me wrong.

that's why you keep changing the subject.

Fees aren't the same as taxes. When I charge you $2,000 to repair something you don't call it taxes do you? Just because the government charges a fee for a service doesn't make it a tax. You have the option to not pay the fee, you don't have the option to not pay the income tax. See the difference? You can keep repeating your illogical arguments to me, its not going to change the facts.

Roads aren't free, ever buy gasoline? Guess what they use that tax money for?

real-world evidence throughout the 20th century shows a stark contrast between high- and low-tax policies. In the 1920s, the Harding-Coolidge-Mellon tax cuts produced the Roaring Twenties. But repeated tax increases by Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt produced and prolonged the Great Depression.
John F. Kennedy vowed to get the economy moving again after the sluggish growth of the high-tax Truman-Eisenhower years. JFK made good on his promise when he lowered the top income-tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent. The result was the 1960’s boom. Twenty years later, Ronald Reagan turned stagflation into the 1980’s boom by slashing the top personal tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent. President Clinton, you might recall, raised taxes in his first term, but lowered them in his second term, contributing to a burst of investment and growth. Note the difference. In his first four years, the economy increased at a 3.2 percent annual rate. But his next four years produced a 4.2 percent economic pace.

I will agree with you that we need a simplified tax code, but I think you are a looney to think the People won't be on the hook to bail out the banks ever again. Its going to keep happening over and over because the idiot American never learns.

 

[Mr Neutron]

We spend less of our wealth on government spending than even Mexico.

I'd agree with you but then we'd both be wrong. Better check your "facts".

At this point our federal government is basically an insurance company with an army.

Cancel my policy.

In the 1940s-1960's we made those who benefited the most from American society give back more of what they earned so we could reinvest it in keeping our country strong.

"Give back"? You make it sound like they were given something or took something they were not supposed to have. And give back to who? You are advocating wealth redistribution. If I work hard and become successful, I'm supposed to "give back" to the government because they know better than I how to help the less fortunate? ELITIST!!!

Since then we've continuously cut their taxes and the result has been huge deficits, crumbling infrastructure, lowered economic mobility, a disappearing middle class, and wide spread poverty.

Wrong again. That is a result of reckless spending.

The idea of cutting our social safety net so we can continue to keep the ultra-wealthy's taxes historically low is cruel and insane. Our country simply does not function well like this.

Strawman!!! Obfuscation!!! Fear mongering!!! Lies!!! Tactics used by the ignorant and illogical.

For most people who grow up poor, hard work doesn't lead to success. It leads to barely getting by.

That is what you get with a progressive income tax.

 

[mame]

Something you often say to me, NoDrama, "Correlation does not mean causation". The "Reagan boom"(and the recession prior) was orchestrated by the fed, under monetarist Paul Volcker. Are you attempting to mislead here ND? Or do you have substantial evidence that it was tax cuts that created the boom and not Fed policy?

Furthermore, cutting taxes on "job creators" will do nothing in a demand constrained economy besides worsen the deficit - don't you care about the government living within it's means? Reagan at least was of the opinion that business was still being too heavily constrained with costs (the mid-70's to early 80's was a supply side crunch so supply side policies actually had an effect where as right now supply side does nothing to help) - that does not mean he was necessarily right, as labor had already been substantially weakened(rightfully so in this case, profit margins were at historic lows around this time) but he at least had appropriete timing, and may have gotten us on the correct side of the laffer curve...

But it's well established in the evidence that tax cuts will not help our with our current situation. What about the Bush tax cuts? Extension of bush tax cuts? record profits BUT WHERE ARE THE JOBS FROM THESE SO CALLED JOB CREATORS? not here... There isn't enough demand to warrant corporate expansion... Why then do you advocate for the inneffective and expensive policy of tax cuts in this economy?

 

[redivider]

he argues for failed policies because it's politically motivated obliviousness that forms his arguments.

JFKs economic 'expansion' had more to do with the monetary policy which created the 'american dream'. you know, when banks were tightly regulated and freddie and fannie did their jobs well. people bought homes. opened shops, a car mechanic would be able to get a middle class house, 2 cars, and a good life. a delivery guy could afford a vacation to the grand canyon and his kids would have enough money to go to college.

anti trust laws were vigorously enforced and america was still free, not held back by the tyranical hand of what you call 'job creators'.

the rich do not create jobs. DEMAND does.

you seem to be oblivious to truth. we are here to keep on providing you with it.

 

[NoDrama]

Something you often say to me, NoDrama, "Correlation does not mean causation". The "Reagan boom"(and the recession prior) was orchestrated by the fed, under monetarist Paul Volcker. Are you attempting to mislead here ND? Or do you have substantial evidence that it was tax cuts that created the boom and not Fed policy?

Furthermore, cutting taxes on "job creators" will do nothing in a demand constrained economy besides worsen the deficit - don't you care about the government living within it's means? Reagan at least was of the opinion that business was still being too heavily constrained with costs (the mid-70's to early 80's was a supply side crunch so supply side policies actually had an effect where as right now supply side does nothing to help) - that does not mean he was necessarily right, as labor had already been substantially weakened(rightfully so in this case, profit margins were at historic lows around this time) but he at least had appropriete timing, and may have gotten us on the correct side of the laffer curve...

But it's well established in the evidence that tax cuts will not help our with our current situation. What about the Bush tax cuts? Extension of bush tax cuts? record profits BUT WHERE ARE THE JOBS FROM THESE SO CALLED JOB CREATORS? not here... There isn't enough demand to warrant corporate expansion... Why then do you advocate for the inneffective and expensive policy of tax cuts in this economy?

EXACTLY!!!! Correlation does not equal causation, thanks for seeing things my way. Now since we are both of the opinion that the tax hikes would not help the economy one bit we can get down to brass tacks.

 

[redivider]

correlation does not mean causation. but in this particular case, taxing the rich less, and cutting services for the poor is most definetly the cause of this economic slump.

du tu duuuuuuuu.....

 

[NoDrama]

he argues for failed policies because it's politically motivated obliviousness that forms his arguments.

JFKs economic 'expansion' had more to do with the monetary policy which created the 'american dream'. you know, when banks were tightly regulated and freddie and fannie did their jobs well. people bought homes. opened shops, a car mechanic would be able to get a middle class house, 2 cars, and a good life. a delivery guy could afford a vacation to the grand canyon and his kids would have enough money to go to college.

anti trust laws were vigorously enforced and america was still free, not held back by the tyranical hand of what you call 'job creators'.

the rich do not create jobs. DEMAND does.

you seem to be oblivious to truth. we are here to keep on providing you with it.

Thank you for seeing the truth of the matter. All your talk of "The Economy was so much better when tax rates were at their very highest" can all be explained by something other than tax rates. Glad to know you are on board too. Now if we can all dispense of this high tax rates/low tax rates = Economic bliss and instead focus on the real problems maybe we might come to a consensus on a solution that would work for all.

 

[redivider]

either way tax rates were much higher back then and the government could actually afford to do it's job well.

disposable income creates demand. the US became great b/c a LOT of people had disposable income.

tax cuts to the rich only ensure that more of that disposable income is concentrated in less and less hands..... it's not good for the economy and we have to change the policy if we want the economy to turn around.

not that complicated my man....

 

[NoDrama]

either way tax rates were much higher back then and the government could actually afford to do it's job well.

disposable income creates demand. the US became great b/c a LOT of people had disposable income.

tax cuts to the rich only ensure that more of that disposable income is concentrated in less and less hands..... it's not good for the economy and we have to change the policy if we want the economy to turn around.

not that complicated my man....

Again, completely oblivious to the points being made. For some reason you have it in your head that we are arguing in favor of tax cuts for the rich, where you got this idea is beyond me, yet again you show your utter confusion on the subject matter.

 

[mame]

EXACTLY!!!! Correlation does not equal causation, thanks for seeing things my way. Now since we are both of the opinion that the tax hikes would not help the economy one bit we can get down to brass tacks.

Tax cuts would do nothing to help the economy, tax hikes will not significantly hurt the economy and we're in debt; Fiscal experts on both sides say any credible debt reduction deal will contain both revenue and spending cuts not just one or the other. Again, I'm against Austerity in the middle of a slump - it's just going to make things worse - but if you are going to embark on an Austerity package, the more you get on the revenue side, the less pain Austerity will cause to already constrained demand and therefore the less damage it will do to the already weak economy.

 

[NoDrama]

umm no, all the money for everything comes from the taxpayer, what you are saying is that just as long as we tax people more we can get the economy moving, but Im telling you you can tax everyone 100% and the economy will still be stuck where it is. Dead Dead Dead. The Capital is gone, all that remains is debt. Wealth cannot be produced without Capital, look it up Mame. If wealth cannot be produced the economy cannot grow. the only way to increase capital production is by deflating the system making it economically sound to save again. You cannot have the Sweet without the Sour.

 

[mame]

umm no, all the money for everything comes from the taxpayer, what you are saying is that just as long as we tax people more we can get the economy moving, but Im telling you you can tax everyone 100% and the economy will still be stuck where it is. Dead Dead Dead.

I never said taxing the rich would get the economy moving, I said taxing the rich as opposed to spending cuts will mitigate harmful effects to the recovery... I'm not saying you can tax the rich without any negative effects, I'm saying that in our current situation that if you're going to embark on an austerity package, supply side tax hikes are less harmful than government spending cuts which primarily effect demand.

The Capital is gone, all that remains is debt. Wealth cannot be produced without Capital, look it up Mame. If wealth cannot be produced the economy cannot grow. the only way to increase capital production is by deflating the system making it economically sound to save again. You cannot have the Sweet without the Sour.

The U.S. government is in perfect position to borrow and to spend in the short term as long as they take a look at paying off debts over the long term. There is no need to destroy the U.S. economy in order to save it, you're falling for that fatalism again... Proper fiscal stimulus can and will bring us to full employment and that is the best thing that can happen for the U.S. economy as of now.

Which reminds me, I was reading this article on CNNmoney.com on the idea of an infrastructure bank... $10 billion pricetag? What do you think?